Policies and Goals

Policies and Goals of the Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition

This document has been prepared by the Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition, located in Santa Barbara County, California, USA.

Introduction

The purpose of the Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition Policies and Goals is to clearly present the position of the Coalition on bicycling issues. These issues range from general policy matters to the design specifics of bikeways. This document presents a coherent set of Policies and Goals for coalition members to use as a reference. It can be used when working with government officials or staff, talking with the news media, writing letters, and other activities where the official position of the Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition (SBBC) is being presented. It will also provide an institutional memory for the coalition by codifying adopted policy positions. It can also serve as an introduction for new or prospective members. This document is organized into Policies, Goals, Standards and Actions. The Policies outline the general principals under which the Coalition operates. The Goals are broad categories of objectives to improve bicycling. The Goals are implemented by incorporating Standards into the design of bikeways and bicycle related facilities, or through Actions taken by government agencies. Hopefully, these Policies and Goals will be used as a reference by government planning and public works staff to design and implement an exemplary bikeway system.
Much of this document is based on the Regional Bikeway Study done by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). This document is intended for public use and any portion may be quoted or incorporated into other documents.

Policy 1. Mission statement

The Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition is a countywide advocacy and resource organization that promotes bicycling for safe transportation and recreation.

Policy 2. SBBC will take positions only on bicycle-related issues

This organization is a coalition, intended to represent a wide range of bicyclists. Getting involved in other issues may dilute our effectiveness as a bicycling advocacy group by presenting a mixed message to government officials, by narrowing our base of support in the public, and by increasing dissension within our membership. However, bicycles are a form of transportation, and funds for bikeway improvements are funded through transportation programs. Transportation policies in general are closely involved in creating bicycle-friendly communities, therefore it may be appropriate to take positions on certain transportation issues.

Policy 3. SBBC is pro-bicycle

The City of Santa Barbara hopes to create a community in which alternative forms of transportation are so available and so attractive that ownership of an automobile is a choice, not a necessity for mobility. Bicycling for transportation and recreation is a key component of the many interdependent elements necessary to create such a community. The Coalition will work to ensure that the automobile does not continue to dominate or take priority over bicycling. However, the Coalition will not oppose projects solely because they benefit automobiles.

Policy 4. SBBC seeks cooperation with government rather than confrontation

The Coalition believes that the most effect means of promoting our Goals is by cooperating to the greatest extent possible with local government. This does not mean endorsement of all local government actions. Where we have common Goals the Coalition will provide support and assistance to achieve those Goals. Where we disagree with government actions, or lack of action, we will work through the official channels for influencing government. These means include written and oral comments on specific actions and documents, meeting with staff to express our opinions, writing letters to the editor, and seeking support from like minded organizations. Only as a last resort will the SBBC support confrontation or legal actions.

Policy 5. Completion of a comprehensive network of bikeways

The Coalition supports the completion of a county-wide system of named, color coded and well-signed bikeways which would enable cyclists of all abilities to access needed services and recreation facilities without exposure to dangerous automobile traffic. The following Goals are elements of accomplishing this policy.
Goal 5.1 — Overcrossings, Undercrossings, Bridges and Tunnels
Crossing the freeway presents one of the greatest obstacles to safe and convenient cycling on the south coast. The distance between crossings is inconveniently long for bicycles and pedestrians. Worse, auto traffic concentrates at these points, with concomitant high concentrations of air pollution, noise and road debris. Traffic also often travels at high speed over freeway crossings and make numerous right turns through bike lanes. The psychological impact of these factors is compounded on the uphill portion of a freeway crossing. Crossings include the steepest grades encountered on many bike routes. Priority should be given to pedestrian and bikeway needs in the designing of freeway interchanges, over or undercrossings, or intersection projects.
Standard 5.1.1 — Bike/pedestrian crossings should be built midway between each auto crossing. Underpasses are preferred, as they require less effort to negotiate.
Standard 5.1.2 — All automobile freeway crossings should not feel life threatening for cyclists and pedestrians. To this end, all crossings should have at least class II facilities, preferably enhanced class II.
Standard 5.1.3 Where reconstruction or major improvement is proposed for an overcrossing, undercrossing, bridge or tunnel that links up with, or is located in close proximity to an existing or proposed bikeway, continuity shall be ensured with the bikeway system. At a minimum, Class II facilities should be provided on the overcrossing.
Standard 5.1.4 — Any new or reconstructed overcrossing, undercrossing, bridge or tunnel should provide for adequate pedestrian and bicycle access to nearby bike/pedestrian facilities on the surface streets located on either side of the overcrossing.
Standard 5.1.5 — In all cases, especially in areas of existing or potential foot traffic, new or reconfigured interchanges should be designed to separate bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
Goal 5.2 — Complete Missing Links
In general, construction of bikeway segments should be given a higher priority than expansion or improvement of serviceable bikeways. Missing links (i.e., uncompleted segments) in the bikeway network reduce the usability of existing bikeways. Where bikeways are not continuous, cyclists have to choose between using streets without bike lanes that may have high traffic volumes, taking a longer alternative route that has less traffic, or not taking the trip by bike. As cyclists may not know the area well enough to choose optimum routes they may be discouraged from choosing to bicycle. Gaps also occur where there is no access across natural (e.g., creeks) or man-made physical barriers (e.g., freeways).
Goal 5.3 — Implementation of General Bikeway Standards
All classes of bikeways should have certain standards in common to promote usibility and safety. Bikeways should incorporate the following standards.
Standard 5.3.1 — Bikeways should form a county-wide system of named, color coded and well-signed routes.
Standard 5.3.2 — Heavily used arterial bike routes should be wide enough to accommodate two riders entirely within one lane. This allows fast commuters to pass more safely, and allows recreational riders to ride next to each other.
Standard 5.3.3 — Bicycle routes should be be designed to safely accommodate the speed and maintain momentum of the serious commuter or recreational rider. A more efficient route will be safer and also attract riders away from auto routes.
Standard 5.3.4 — Paths should be designed whenever possible to safely accommodate speeds of 20 mph for flat sections, 30 mph for downhill, and 15 mph for uphill. Features which require unnecessary braking, such as abrupt grade changes, sharp turns, blind turns, and excessively restrictive openings in motor vehicle barriers are to be avoided.
Standard 5.3.5 — Bike facilities should whenever possible be constructed to accommodate the entire range of cyclists with one facility. However, in some instances it may be necessary to have parallel facilities where each alternative is seriously deficient for a large class of cyclists. For example, in the case of a heavily trafficked direct thoroughfare with quiet alternate one block over that involves many turns and stops, cyclists for whom speed is the primary consideration will not use the alternate due to its twists and turns, and cyclists for whom traffic avoidance is a primary consideration will not use the main road. In such a case it may be necessary to accommodate fast cyclists with Class II facilities on the thoroughfare and other cyclists with traffic calming on the alternate. A prime example of this parallel route situation is Cathedral Oaks (Class II) and Berkeley/ Covington/University (Class III) roads in Goleta.
Standard 5.3.6 — Bikeways are to some extent directional. A heavily trafficked hill which is unpleasant to climb (breathing hard next to cars which are exhausting hard) may be relatively pleasant to descend, at least for an experienced rider. Also, the speed differential between up hill bike/car traffic is much greater than between down hill bike/car traffic. The greater the speed differential the greater the incompatibility between bikes and cars. Therefore, in some cases it may advantageous to stretch funds by enhancing the bike component of shared facilities in the uphill direction only.
Standard 5.3.7 — Transitions at bridges and change of route class are to be safe, clearly distinguished and convinient. Transitions should not require the bicyclist to dismount and function like a pedestrian.
Standard 5.3.8 — Rubberized crossing systems should be installed on bike facilities at railroad grade crossings.
Goal 5.4 — Implementation of Class I Bikeway Standards
A Class I bikeway is a separate path for bicycles not associated with a road. Class I bikeways are generally considered to be the safest and most aesthetically pleasing routes because they are away from automobile traffic, exhaust and noise. The following standards should be implemented for Class I bikeways:
Standard 5.4.1 — All Class I facilities should meet or exceed minimum standards set by the California Highway Design Manual and those recommended in this document.
Standard 5.4.2 — Bicycle paths should provide smooth, hard surfaces at least 8 feet wide for a two way path, 4 feet wide for a one way path with 1 and 1/2 foot shoulders. Exceptions to this standard may be made where grading would cause impacts (hillsides) or along creeks where space is limited.
Standard 5.4.3 — Class I and multi-purpose trails should be constructed to permit access by emergency vehicles (i.e., police, paramedics, ambulance, etc.), sweeping and maintenance equipment.
Standard 5.4.4 — Where Class I bikeways or multi-purpose trails cross major streets, railroad tracks, or sidewalks, proper grade separation or warning devices must be incorporated.
Standard 5.4.5 — Where two way traffic is provided on a paved path, a center stripe should be installed.
Standard 5.4.6 — All access points to bicycle paths should be clearly signed, marked and have convenient connections from public streets.
Standard 5.4.7 — Areas adjacent to riparian corridors (creeks) should be used for bicycle paths where environmentally feasible, as frequently the flood control maintenance channel may the easiest corridor to pursue in terms of right of way acquisition for bicycle facilities; the riparian corridors may also be the only safe way through a built up area with heavy traffic.
Standard 5.4.8 — Bicycle paths along creeks should be located outside setbacks required to protect creek banks. Access points should be limited in number and avoid removal of significant habitat.
Standard 5.4.9 — Bicycle paths along agricultural areas and levees should be signed and/or fenced to discourage trespassing onto adjoining land uses. Existing service roads should be used where possible.
Standard 5.4.10 — The use of the Class I bikeways by motorized vehicles should be prohibited; signs indicating "For Bicycle Use Only" or "No Motor Vehicles" should be installed along the path at popular access points.
Standard 5.4.11 — Unnecessary "scenic meanders" are to be avoided for Class I commuting paths.
Goal 5.5 — Implementation of Class II Bikeway Standards
Class II bikeways are lanes painted on a road designating a separation of automobile and bike traffic. The safety and convenience of Class II bikeways can vary depending on the speed and volume of automobile traffic on the road. The following standards should be implemented for Class II bikeways:
Standard 5.5.1 — All Class II facilities should meet or exceed minimum standards set by the California Highway Design Manual and those recommended in this document.
Standard 5.5.2 — Parking should not be permitted to block a Class II facility, especially on a regionally significant route. Parking restrictions should be enforced by the police.
Standard 5.5.3— Loop detectors installed at signalized intersections should be sensitive enough to detect bicycles and the pavement marked to show the cyclist where the trigger is located. Signal actuation buttons convenient for bicyclists should be installed at intersections along Class II and III routes where there is no loop detector.
Standard 5.5.4 — Where auto traffic is heavy and/or fast (e.g., freeway overcrossings) class II paths should enhanced to increase rider safety by providing a grade separation engineered after the Danish model, widening the lane beyond minimum width, or some other safety augmentation.
Standard 5.5.5 — At intersections with right-hand turn pockets, through-moving striped lanes for bicycles should be provided to the left of the vehicle turn pocket (as shown in Figure 1003.2C in the Highway Design Manual).
Standard 5.5.6 — At intersections where right-hand vehicle turn lanes are not present, all bicycle lane delineations should be dashed prior to the intersection to remind through-moving bicyclists to merge with through-moving traffic.
Standard 5.5.7 — Bicycle lanes on the outside of on-street parking should be striped on both sides. Where high bicycle usage occurs in a area with a high parking turn-over rate, the provision of a buffer area between the on-street parking and bicycle lane, demarcated with a striped line, should be provided for safety.
Standard 5.5.8 — If parking is permitted along the curb, every effort should be made to eliminate parking far enough before the intersection to make bicycle and auto merges safer (parking should not be permitted to block a Class II facility near intersections.)
Standard 5.5.9 — Traffic levels along city streets designated as Class II bicycle routes should not exceed 10,000 Average Daily Vehicle Trips (ADT) or 35 mph. Where ADT levels and speed exceed these standards, the Class II designated facility should be considered for upgrading to an enhanced Class II or Class I facility. Alternately, an equally expeditious street nearby with lower traffic levels should be identified and designated as the bicycle route.
Standard 5.5.10 — Where feasible, alternate safe bikeways (Class I, enhanced Class II, Class II, or Class III) should be provided near major arterials which do not have Class II facilities (e.g., upper State St.), with the arterial signed to encourage bicyclists to use the alternate route. Traffic-calming techniques should be used on the to enhance its attractiveness and safety for bicyclists.
Standard 5.5.11 — Bus pockets should be put in adjacent to established bike lanes on arterials with high traffic volumes.
Standard 5.5.12 — Drainage inlet grates should provide an adequate surface for bicyclists. Bicycle-safe models, such as those which resemble honeycombs or cast iron grates with short angled slots can be used. The best design is the curb-face inlet, as long as the slope to the inlet is not excessive. The grates should be installed level with the pavement, and maintained flush with the surface with resurfacing. Retrofitting by welding flat steel bars across the grate perpendicular to the flow of traffic is also effective.
Standard 5.5.13 — Whenever possible, bike lane signs should be installed on existing sign poles, traffic signal poles, street light standards or other utility poles.
Goal 5.6 — Implementation of Class III Bikeway Standards
A Class III bike route is a "shared route" where both bicycle and motor vehicle traffic will use the same roadway surface area. A Class III bike route is generally identified only by signs designating a roadway as part of a bikeway system. Bike route signs may alert motorists to watch for cyclists and the route signs will guide cyclists to a specific destination or through unfamiliar residential areas. The following standards should be implemented for Class III bikeways:
Standard 5.6.1 — Class III facilities should only be considered in low traffic, low speed streets. The designation of such a route would be to serve as a connection between two unconnected Class I or Class II facilities, or as a neighborhood alternative to routes with worse automobile traffic. Class III routes should only be established on those routes which are an integral part of the overall network.
Standard 5.6.2 — Class III bikeways should use traffic calming techniques where traffic speed or volume create safety problems.
Standard 5.6.3 — Two way stops at intersections with no stop sign for the bike route is preferred as few riders will perform a full stop at a quiet residential crossing.
Standard 5.6.4 — Convenient, safe shortcuts used by schoolchildren commuting by bicycle should be signed as bicycle routes.
Standard 5.6.5 — Bike route signs should be placed at the beginning and end of a bike route, and at the far end of all arterial intersections, and every intervening point of confusion or route decision point.
Standard 5.6.6 — Where a Class III facility has an uncontrolled crossing of a heavily trafficked street, signs should be placed on the street to warn motorists to watch for bikes, and some signage to warn bicyclists of heavy traffic crossing ahead should also be provided.
Standard 5.6.7 — Traffic calming planters should be situated in the middle of the road, rather than the side, so they cause cars to slow more than bikes.
Standard 5.6.8 — Speed bumps should end 18"-24" from the side of the road, to allow bicycles to ride comfortably past.
Goal 5.7 — Implementation of Standards for the Maintenance of Bikeways
Poor maintenance resulting in deterioration of the roadway surface as well as broken glass, sand and other debris on the roadway is a deterrent to increased bicycle use. Severe accidents can occur as a result of road debris or as cyclists swerve into the traffic lane to avoid the problem area. Crumbling asphalt, cracking (distressed) surfaces, and potholes significantly reduce the bicyclists' ride quality, and influence the choice of bicycling as a alternative transportation mode. The following standards should be implemented:
Standard 5.7.1 — Standards for maintaining bicycle paths, lanes and routes should be consistent with the Highway Design Manual and those recommended in this document.
Standard 5.7.2 — Bikeway demarcation (striping and stenciling) should be renewed on a regular basis (e.g. biennially).
Standard 5.7.3 — When streets designated as Class II facilities are repaved, the bikelanes should be restriped, and pavement markings should be renewed.
Standard 5.7.4 — The following should be repaired, replaced or updated as necessary:
lighting provided for bike facilities (tunnels, bikeway lighting at night)
storm drain inlet grates
bicycle loop detectors or signal activation buttons
bicycle parking and storage facilities
barriers associated with the bicycle facilities or traffic calming
signage.
Standard 5.7.5 — Potential hazards should be located and corrected:
Improvements to grates, manholes, any cracks or joints, or other obstacles in the portion of the roadway typically used by bicycles.
Vegetation removal. Sight distance improvements at intersections (removal of on-street parking or fixed objects near line of sight at intersections).
Regular litter removal and street sweeping should be undertaken on Class II and III bike routes. If reconstruction with chip seal is undertaken, special care should be taken to remove the excess chip material from the bikelanes adjacent to the roadway.
Goal 5.8 — Implementation of Signage and Map Standards
A comprehensive system of named/numbered, color or icon-coded, signage should be implemented on bikeways. At each end of major bikeways, and at intersections of that path with other major bikeways, a monument-style detailed map of the whole bikeway with elevations. Space for riders to stop and look at the map shall also be provided. Signage is also needed to direct bicyclists to alternate bikeways rather than high traffic volume streets.
Example: the Atascadero Bike Path. On the west edge at the UCSB/Isla Vista boundary, a detailed map showing the whole bikeway. On a pole next to it, the following: "Coastal Bikeway 1" with blue border, "UCSB Storke Plaza 0.2 mi Goleta Beach 0.8 mi Maria Ygancio Bikepath 3.2 mi La Cumbre Road 7.5 mi Downtown SB 9 mi". Through the UCSB labyrinth along the straightest line, small blue bordered bikeway symbols attached to utility poles or there own posts (or stencils), with the numeral 1 and an arrow showing which way it went. On long straight sections, just a small blue bordered bikeway symbol with the 1 to reassure people they haven't lost their way. At the opposite edge of UCSB, a sign with large letters showing revised distances to destinations. At the bike path intersection at Goleta beach, a detail map and distances to destinations on both trails. Through the twists and turns at the entrance to Goleta Beach, small blue signs with arrows...and so on.
Standard 5.8.1 — Bike signage should meet or exceed the minimum standards in Section 1004 of the Highway Design Manual.
Standard 5.8.2 — Bikeways should be named, color coded and/or numbered and signed to show both that they exist and where they go.
Standard 5.8.3 — Signs and bike lane pavement markings should be installed at such intervals and positions to eliminate doubt on the part of bicyclist as to their location and route.
Standard 5.8.4 — Bikeway signage should be located at major bike route intersections and at major points of entry to the bikeway system detailing each route with directions and distances to major destinations.
Standard 5.8.5 — Small bike symbols should be located at minor intersections, at long stretches between other types of signs, or at confusion points. This could be in the form of a stencil on the pavement or a small sign with colored border corresponding to color code, number or icon for that route.
Standard 5.8.6 — Bicycle maps should include bikeway location and type (e.g., Class I, etc.), bicycle shops and bike rental facilities, and indicate routes which may be unsafe. The location of public parks and other recreational facilities,schools, libraries, and museums may also be included.
Action 5.8.7 — A bicycle map should be developed for the communities in North County, similar to the one published by Traffic Solutions for the South Coast area.
Action 5.8.8 — Bikeway maps should be made available to the local Chamber of Commerce, major employers, and bike shops for distribution to cyclists.
Goal 5.9 — Implementation of Bicycle Parking and Storage Standards
Bicycle parking/storage facilities, such as secure bike racks, or storage lockers, are necessary to provide bike storage for the cyclist while at a destination. Adequate and secure facilities will help manage and control indiscriminate bicycle parking.
Standard 5.9.1 — Bicycle parking should be provided at shopping and business destinations, places of employment and residential complexes.
Standard 5.9.2 — Bicycle parking should be provided at points of intermodal connection (e.g., bus terminals, park and ride lots, train stations).
Standard 5.9.3 — Bicycle racks and lockers:
Should be located where clear and safe pedestrian circulation is ensured.
Should promote organized parking while minimizing the amount of space required when full of bikes.
Should be located near main entrances of destinations and be visible from the interior.
Should support the frame of the bike in a stable position and not cause damage to the bicycle.
Should be installed on an asphalt or concrete surface.
Should be located in well lighted areas.
Should allow the frame and a wheels to be locked to the rack using a standard sized "U" lock or cable lock.
Should have signs or symbols showing the correct operation of the rack.
Should not be segregated in automobile parking lots or parking structures.

Policy 6. Funding

Money is key in creating a safe and comprehensive bikeway system. The best planning efforts are of benefit to no one unless bikeways are constructed, and that takes money. In the past local governments have used only competitive funding sources for bikeways. In order to create a comprehensive bikeway system in a timely manner, non-competitive (discretionary) sources of funding should be utilized. The following actions should be taken to fund bikeways.
Goal 6.1 — Implementation of County and City Funding Guidelines
County and city jurisdictions should adopt a comprehensive Policy for funding bikeways. The following actions should be taken.
Action 6.1.1 — The County should allocate a minimum of $2,000,000 per year to be used on bicycle maintenance and bicycle facility construction countywide (based on the $500,000 per year called for in the Goleta Community Plan for Goleta alone).
Action 6.1.2 — Jurisdictions should dedicate at least 10% of guaranteed funds to alternative transportation. Guaranteed funding sources include Local STP, Measure D, Gas Tax and developer fees.
Action 6.1.3 — Jurisdictions should adopt a capital improvement program for bicycles similar to that adopted for streets and roads.
Action 6.1.4 — Jurisdictions should adopt a funding commitment to support the capital improvement program (this could be as a Policyto set aside a percentage of the jurisdictions' transportation budget for completing projects to implement the identified capital improvements, or alternately, a certain dollar amount could be committed each year to this end.)
Action 6.1.5 — Jurisdictions should prepare and submit grant applications to the various funding agencies for bicycle projects to implement the jurisdiction's Bikeway Element and bikeway capital improvement program.
Action 6.1.6 — Jurisdictions should require developers to contribute funding or right of way easements for the completion of bicycle facilities contiguous to or near the development.
Action 6.1.7 — Jurisdictions should create budget line items for bikeway maintenance and bikeway construction.
Goal 6.2 — Implementation of SBCAG Funding Guidelines
SBCAG should determine funding availability and encourage the development of designated bikeway facilities using a variety of funding sources, and public and private improvements to the bikeway system. The following actions should be taken by SBCAG.
Action 6.2.1 — SBCAG should attempt to identify new or existing funding sources for the completion of the Regional Bikeway System, and make that information available to local jurisdictions.
Action 6.2.2 — SBCAG should recommend that each local agency adopt a capital improvement program for bikeways such as is now adopted for roadways and transit.
Action 6.2.3 — SBCAG should recommend that each jurisdiction adopt a funding commitment Policy to support its capital improvement program from the various sources that make up its overall roadway budget, including gas tax, local Measure D, LTF and grant sources. This could include establishing a threshold to allocate a minimum amount of funding solely for bikeway construction and maintenance.
Action 6.2.4 — SBCAG should encourage increased efforts on the part of cities and county to submit applications for bicycle projects for grant funding each year. Assist local jurisdictions in the preparation and acquisition of bicycle grants.
Action 6.2.5 — SBCAG should review and comment on applications for bicycle funding. In the ranking of project applications, ensure that projects needed to complete missing links in the regional network, or which provide regional connectivity or intermodal connections receive high priority. Funding priority should be given to those projects that serve commuting and school trips to ensure consistency with the adopted Congestion Management Program, the Clean Air Plan and the Transportation Demand Management Program.

Policy 7. Mass transit and intermodal connectivity

Because of long commutes between some county communities, cyclists may have to rely on more than one mode of transportation to complete their trips. Planning for bicycles should be conducted in conjunction with planning for other modes, such as transit and passenger rail, to encourage intermodal connectivity.
Goal 7.1 — Implementation of Mass Transit and Intermodal Connectivity Standards
The following standards and actions should be taken by various jurisdictions to create a transportation infrastructure usable by bicyclists.
Standard 7.1.1 — Transit districts should equip all busses with bike racks. Bike-and- ride transit routes should be implemented. A bike-and-ride service is a benefit in areas where distance, hills and wind are a major deterrent for current and potential bicycle commuters and recreational riders, or in crossing a waterway over which a bicycle facility is not provided. The service allows commuters to ride their bicycles to the regional fixed route bus stops, put the bikes on the bus bike rack, and ride the bus the remainder of the trip.
Standard 7.1.2 — Private buses and trains should provide for transportation of bicycles and well designed bicycle interfaces.
Standard 7.1.3 — Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be coordinated with transit activities to provide safe and convenient access to transit.
Standard 7.1.4 — Secure bicycle storage should be provided at major transit facilities and bus stops, park-and-ride lots, airports, and passenger rail stations.
Action 7.1.5 — SBCAG should work with the transit agencies in the region to encourage the implementation of a bike-and-ride system on routes that serve more than one jurisdiction.
Action 7.1.6 — SBCAG, the cities, the county, and transit agencies should work together to ensure the provision of secure bicycle parking/storage at or near transit system terminals, at points of high ridership origin, at park-and-ride lot locations and at passenger rail stations .
Action 7.1.7 — Local Jurisdiction should require employers to provide an appropriate or adequate amount of secure bicycle parking/storage at employment sites.

Policy 8. Government policy implementation and coordination

Jurisdictions should have implementation programs associated with their adopted Bikeway Elements or Plans. The implementation programs would specify how the completion of each jurisdiction's Bikeway Element or Plan would be accomplished. The various jurisdictions should have a position dedicated to implementing bikeway programs and provide for ongoing public involvement in bikeway policies.
Goal 8.1 — Santa Barbara Association of Government Actions
SBCAG can play a pivotal role in the development of Santa Barbara County bikeways. SBCAG should take the following actions to further the completion of a regional bikeway system.
Action 8.1.1 — SBCAG should have a bicycle coordinator position. The bicycle coordinator's duties would include: helping local districts apply for federal funds, maintaining the regional bicycle plan and coordinating the bicycle elements of the various districts, coordinating transit and auto plans with bicycling Goals.
Action 8.1.2 — SBCAG should taking a proactive role in reforming Santa Barbara's transportation system to meet modern needs. Achievement of a mode split similar to that in Europe (50% auto/50% other) would make Santa Barbara County a leader in alternative transportation.
Action 8.1.3 — SBCAG should work with the jurisdictions to ensure coordination in developing bikeways that extend across jurisdictional boundaries within the county (county, cities, Caltrans).
Action 8.1.4— SBCAG should work with local jurisdictions toward completing special studies to facilitate the completion of the regional bikeway system.
Action 8.1.5 — SBCAG should develop a recommended set of policies and standards to be used by all jurisdictions in completing their Bikeway Elements and review and approve Bikeway Elements based on those standards.
Action 8.1.6 — SBCAG should provide technical assistance to local jurisdictions in the preparation of state mandated bicycle elements.
Action 8.1.7 — SBCAG should work with San Luis Obispo and Ventura County and Caltrans to coordinate the development of bikeways that extend across county boundaries.
Action 8.1.8 — SBCAG should work with jurisdictions to ensure that Bikeway Elements provide for regional connectivity and intermodal connections.
Action 8.1.9 — SBCAG should review and comment on bicycle grant application submittals and ensure that project design is consistent with adopted policies and standards.
Goal 8.2 — County and City Jurisdictions Actions
The county and cities are ultimately responsible for the planning, design and construction of bikeways. Their commitment to safe and convenient bicycling can be judged by the actions they take.
Action 8.2.1 — The county and cities should designate bicycle coordinators. Their duties would include updating Bikeway Elements, coordinating the Bikeway Elements with transit and auto plans, coordinating with SBCAG, preparing funding proposals and reviewing bikeway related engineering designs.
Action 8.2.2 — The county and cities should develop as a first priority bikeways which form a comprehensive network within each jurisdiction which also allow continuity with routes provided by other jurisdictions in adjacent areas.
Action 8.2.3 — The county and cities should develop a comprehensive strategy and schedule for applying for grants to augment county funds for bikeway improvements. At a minimum, the county and cities should apply for TEA, CMAQ, and STP grants in the federal ISTEA program and the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program coordinated by the State of California Resources Agency. In addition, the funding summary table in the 1994 Regional Bikeway Study published by SBCAG should be reviewed to evaluate other funding sources.
Action 8.2.4 — Public Works Departments should adopt a ten year plan prioritizing bikeway improvements and outlining funding sources and schedules (similar to how road projects are handled). The plans should be developed with input gathered in at least two public hearings.
Action 8.2.5 — The county and cities should prepare Bikeway Elements and submit to SBCAG for review, comment and approval.
Action 8.2.6 — Work with adjacent jurisdictions to establish joint user agreements to combine bikeways and railroad, utility easements, and drainage facilities when feasible.
Action 8.2.7 — Develop a mechanism for jurisdictional responsibility and accountability for maintaining bikeways.
Action 8.2.8 — Ensure that as roadway improvement projects are undertaken, provision for bicycles is included as appropriate, consistent with the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Congestion Management Program (CMP), Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) requirements.
Action 8.2.9 — In reviewing land use development proposals, ensure that any planned bikeway projects comply with the jurisdiction's adopted policies and standards. Neighborhoods should be traffic calmed so they are safe and pleasant to walk and for children to ride bikes.
Action 8.2.10 — Bicycle advisory committees for city and county jurisdictions should be created to provide bicycle related input for planning commissions and decision makers.
Standard 8.2.11 — The interjurisdictional or interagency approvals, coordination efforts and necessary permits would be site specific, and determined in the planning process of each individual bikeway.
Standard 8.2.12 — The use of consistent standards throughout the region would increase bicyclists' safety, assist in implementing bikeway construction, and facilitate regional connectivity.
Standard 8.2.13 — Public Works Departments should provide the opportunity to bicyclists to review the engineering designs for all projects that have the potential to impact bikeways.

Policy 9. Land use planning

Land use planning can be an effect tool for ensuring that development enhances rather than degrades the usability of the bikeway system. New and expanded development must take into consideration the effects on traffic caused by the development. The same consideration should be given to general mobility, in specific, bike and pedestrian mobility. Bikeways should be a standard consideration in all land use planning
Standard 9.0.1 — Provisions for bicycling should be included in the land use ordinances that implement the general plans of the County and cities. Provision for bikeway easements and construction of bikeway segments should be conditions of project approval for those land use projects proposed near planned bikeways.
Standard 9.0.2 — Developer fees required by various jurisdictions should be available for bikeways impacted by the project, such as integration of the project with existing bikeways and completion of missing sections affected by the development..
Standard 9.0.3 — Project approval conditions placed on major industrial and commercial developments should require the provision of showers and lockers for bicycle commuters.
Standard 9.0.4 — The county and cities should requires bicycle racks for most development projects.

Policy 10. Education, safety and law enforcement

Provision of improved bicycle facilities will likely create a safer cycling environment. However, "engineering solutions" are not the ultimate solution where car and bicycle movements conflict regularly. Safely integrating bicycles with automobiles on the roadways where bicycles and cars must share the road requires education and enforcement.
Section 21200 of the California Vehicle Code states that "every person riding a bicycle on a roadway has all the rights and is subject to all the duties applicable to the driver of an automobile". Education is key in resolving conflict between motorists and bicyclists.
Standard 10.0.1 — Safety education programs in the schools are an essential foundation for bicycle safety. Schools should be encouraged to maintain or expand existing student bicycle education programs. On-going bicycle safety instruction should be made available to all age levels, especially young people who do not have driver's licenses and, therefore, may not be aware of basic traffic regulations.
Standard 10.0.2 — Bicycle safety programs and education for both cyclists and motorists provide through schools, public agencies, non-profit groups and the private sector.
Standard 10.0.3 — Law officials should consider expanding their efforts as appropriate to enforce the vehicle code regulations pertaining to bicycling. Information on the fines for violating the vehicle code should included in the educational materials and on the bike map.
Standard 10.0.4 — The legal effect of a stop sign for cyclists should mean "yield".

Policy 11. Off-road bicycling

The use of off road trails for mountain biking can be a contentious issue. The Coalition supports the following International Mountain Biking Association Rules of the Trail as the basis for responsible mountain biking.
Ride on open trails only. Respect trails and road closures, private property, and requirements for permits and authorization.
Leave no trace. Don't ride when the ground will be marred, such as on certain soils after a rain. Never ride off trail, skid your tires, or discard any object.
Control your bicycle. Excessive speed frightens and injures people, gives mountain biking a bad name, and, ultimately results in trail closures.
Always yield. Make your approach known well in advance. Show your respect when passing others by slowing to walking speed or even stopping, especially in the presence of horses. Anticipate that other trail users may be around corners or in blind spots.
Never spook animals. Give them extra room and time to adjust to you. Running livestock and disturbing wild animals is a serious offense. Leave ranch and farm gates as you find them, or as marked.
Plan ahead. Know your equipment, your ability, and the area in which you are riding - and prepare accordingly. Keep trails open by setting an example of responsible cycling for all to see.

Acknowledgement: Many of the standards and actions in this document are based on those in SBCAG's Regional Bikeway Study prepared by Ann Lawler. Copies of that study can be obtained from the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments